Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting

Hyper Cacher victims

From Le nom des victimes de l’HyperCacher dévoilé: Y. Cohen, Y. Hattab, P. Braham, F.M. Saada

• Yohan Cohen (22)
• Yoav Hattab (21) son of the rabbi of Tunis
• Philippe Braham (in his 40s)
• François-Michel Saada (in his 60s)

USAs attack on Iraq ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It looks as we can trace this back to USA (again) and their attack on Iraq i 2003 and Abu Ghraib torture in 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.157.25 (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You can make a slight connection to a large number of things going back hundreds of years to this. However France's foreign policy operations against Islamic extremists, such as recent interventions in Mali are independent of the USA and France has been a major player in the Islamic world of North Africa for decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.125.97 (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

France's foreign policy is very much independent of the US, unlike say, England. The relationship between Algerian Islamic extremism groups and France long pre-dates 9/11 and the United State's War on Terror. Rob984 (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

My point is that many muslims where radicalized after the controversial US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the things that happened there in the years after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.157.25 (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SOAP, this talk page is for discussion of how to improve the article, not for personal opinions of editors. Nil Einne (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Not really, because Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism before the USA overthrew the Baathist regime. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes really, and I hope this will come back and bite you in the ass very soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.157.25 (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No, NOT really, and I just showed you the evidence to the contrary. You were also warned about using Wikipedia as a soapbox for your agenda against the War on Terror. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Background section to dig in

I made a first push on the background section shich is now such as :

Background
1.1 Charlie Hebdo satirical works
1.2 Demographics and sociology
1.3 Ideological conflict

It still need further digging to explain the conflict at play there, between French freedom of speech, laicity, partially failing integration system, and radical Islam which see itself as above everything. And I probably forgot some factors. Please help around, an Encyclopedia is here to EXPLAIN processes so we learn from each. Yug (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you have done a good job in presenting the material there , quite starkly, but avoiding pov presentation. Sayerslle (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the demographic material as WP:OR. The increase in Muslim population of France over the last 50 years is irrelevant. Now, if one wanted to talk about the increasing radicalization over the last few years, go ahead. Abductive (reasoning) 17:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Abductive, I saw load of TV materials about radicalisation, French suburbs socio-economic situation, young muslims radicalization. These subjects are clearly raising up within French medias. But I didn't found in-depth newspaper articles on these aspects in the articles I my quick review. As I'am in mid-year exams, I cannot read nor write more, but an outline is there ! Yug (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Abductive Can you prove that the increase in the Muslim population is not relevant? Your reasoning currently is unsound. An increase in population clearly allows for an increase in radicalization as well. Simple cause and effect. Zup326 (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to prove it; per WP:BURDEN, you have to prove it. Abductive (reasoning) 17:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The demographic material is well-sourced and passes WP:OR. You have no argument based on WP:BURDEN as the content is sourced and the verifiability is not in question. All of your arguments are highly flawed. Zup326 (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:SYNTHESIS. Abductive (reasoning) 20:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no OR or SYNTHESIS there. If you believe otherwise, the burden is on you, Abductive, to demonstrate it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes there is. For example, using sources that predate the the attack to draw conclusions. This is the definition of synthesis. But we may be arguing at cross-purposes: I 100% do want all kinds of information about the radicalization/Islamistization of Muslims in France in the article, if secondary sources connecting this to the attack are provided. The article should not make any connections between the increasing number of Muslims in France and the attack. After all, there were plenty of Muslims in France in the 1960s, but no such attacks. Abductive (reasoning) 21:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

What I gather from this statement is that you possibly believe relevance is based on what you personally want or don't want? I have no further comment. Zup326 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• using sources that predate the the attack to draw conclusions: and what conclusions were drawn, pray?
• After all, there were plenty of Muslims in France in the 1960s, but no such attacks: and where does it imply otherwise? You're reading things into the statements that are not there.

Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The population increase is lowly relevant IMHO, but qualitative limitation (education, jobless rate, etc) is more relevant. Note: Abductive, you are removing several contents quite hastily, please help around by sourcing rather than doing not encouraged deletions. Yug (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be seen as endorsing a notion that more Muslims led to a terrorist attack. In Germany, for example, the largely Turkish Muslim population has been growing a lot since WWII. But are some Turks running around, shooting and bombing? Not really; of all the Islamist terror attacks in Germany, only one had 2007 bomb plot in Germany Turkish membership, and that one was driven by recent converts Gelowicz and Schneider. Abductive (reasoning) 17:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

you forget the Hamburger Morgenpost was firebombed Yesterday after it published some Charlie Hebdo cartoons. So not all Germans say Ich bin Charlie, you know? 06:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierItzm (talk • contribs)

But were the perpetrators of the recent attack Turkish? If not, it seems largely irrelevant to the point Abductive was making. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be seen as endorsing a notion that more Muslims led to a terrorist attack.: and where, in the material you removed, can such an interpretation be drawn? The interpretation I got from it is: there has been a large population of Muslims in France for a long time, so it shouldn't be surprising that (a) the shooters were French citizens who (b) spoke perfect French. Exactly the kind of context I would expect from an article like this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

good point - that material all comes from that same opinion piece from cbc and should be removed really (oh, and a 2004 book - so is clearly synth because it cant have been talking about Charlie hebdo attacks) - - the influence of militant Islamic ideas among disaffected elements is different. Sayerslle (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

About the book source, that's definitely not WP:SYNTHESIS. For one thing the book source was used for a single, brief sentence. It does not combine any references together to prove a false point. Secondly, it's a BACKGROUND section for goodness sakes, and hence explains things that were before the shooting. Thus the sources, if reliable, may also be before the shooting. Charlie Hebdo existed before the shooting, the cartoons existed before the shooting, tensions existed before the shooting, laïcité existed before the shooting. Presenting an argument of "it's from 2004 so it's synth" just does not come across as credible. By this logic, then the entire background section would need also need to be blanked. Mostly all of the sources in the background section predate the shooting, are they synth as well then in your opinion? If this was the attack or motive section, then you've got a valid argument that a source from 2004 has nothing to do with the attack itself. In the background section, it's not the case. Whenever policies such as WP:SYNTH are misused as false backing to present an argument then it becomes much harder to debate and take seriously whatever is brought to the table, if there is indeed any other legitimate points. Zup326 (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

oh Christ - well your argument sounds to me like a charter to drag in any old stuff you want into a 'background' section and sod whether its related to the attack on Charlie hebdo - its OR to say this 2004 book is 'background' to the attacks -who says so - turkey gobble and zup ? - the 2004 book is only brought to the sodding table by OR , nothing else. I can't stand this dumb wikilawyering - Sayerslle (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sayerslle: I didn't add the 2004 source. I added the very in-context CBC source, to which your objective appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary. Another guy who wants it quite strongly happens to be PuffinSoc (he brought in the book source in the first place), and he's been restoring a lot of background information around once per day whenever it got nuked. I'm not the one doing reverts nor am I sitting here drooling to delete the information the next time it comes back. The first issue people had with it, was simply being the lead-off paragraph. When we moved it down, only one editor kept on blanking it. When 2 guys keep on re-adding something for days on end, and 1 guy keeps on deleting it and gets blocked for doing so, then the current consensus (albeit it a small one) is inclusion. As per your request I went ahead and added another source myself which is the only contribution I've made to the section. It's not a major disagreement and I appreciate the fact that you've accepted the source. Zup326 (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel strongly that there must be decent background to this article, but it must be in context. Given the amount of news and commentary out there, I think it would be reasonable to limit the background to what has appeared in sources about the shooting (which is likely substantial). Something like a Time article, for instance. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, Sayerslle has made his opinion quite clear that he simply just doesn't want the book. As I type this, PuffinSoc has restored the information about the book yet again. Is there any reason why the book reference in itself so desperately needs to be nuked? I'm perfectly fine with it. If we can say there are 5 million Muslims in France then why not further state that 1.7 million of them are in Paris? It's an extremely brief sentence that aids the reader. It helps the context of the section regardless of the source's age. I'm not losing sleep over it either way and I merely wish to see an end to the edit wars. That being said, take a look at the other sub-sections in Background. One of the sources is from way back in 2008, some from 2012, etc. Zup326 (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's really important to understanding the incident there'll be a source that gives such background. The book has nothing to do with the shooting; the CBC and Time articles are about the shooting. Try Google---I don't see anything in the first page that gives the Muslim population of Paris, but I do see an interesting tidbit in multiple sources: France has the largest Muslim population in the EU: The Economist, CBC, The Telegraph, The New York Times. If we stick to what sources about the shooting have to say about the background, then we won't have editors claiming SYNTH or OR. We'll still have Abductive removing the CBC-sourced info, though, obviously. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

'stick to what sources about the shooting have to say about the background' - yes, thats a good guide imo - the problem I have with that CBC article is that though it is about the shooting it looks like a guest columnist kind of thing , and an op-ed - but I wont edit war over itSayerslle (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Which perhaps applies to the "right wing" stuff (whose original removal I did not object to), but not to the rest of it, which is strictly factual and in context. Several of the sources I just linked to above mention some of the same stuff. Conrad Black just wrote in the National Post about the flood of immigrants following the war in Algeria---a million of them in the 1960s. This info is not limited to what the CBC article says---the CBC article happened to be the first source I came across that mentioned these things. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough guys. I'm always in favor of increasing the amount of reliable sources. The thing is, I've written most of what I'm going to write already for this article, mostly in the attack, siege, and demonstration sections. They're now relatively in good shape and fairly up-to-date. I would have liked to have written about the Background section a little bit as well but I felt put off from doing so due to the edit wars. I'd be willing to write a paragraph or two once it's clear that the edit wars and the blanking of entire sections is over with. Zup326 (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

oh bloody hell, Conrad black , - well now maybe I have to refine what I think is a good guide as something like - 'what sources about the shooting have to say about the background and which aforesaid sources are respected commentators, historians, and journalists on the history and politics of contemporary France and whose views appear in RS -' Sayerslle (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand: are you trashing Black's credentials as a historian? I've now quoted media from both the left and the right in Canada among the sea of other sources (American and British) I've pointed to above. How many sources do I have to provide before you'll graciously allow your minions to include background demographics? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

While sources is needed and welcome, your push for EXTERNAL source at every single corner make our editorial work impossible (is this what you want ?). I will take some example.

• I formerly wrote 2 lines about muslim population arrival into lower income jobs and not complete integration, which were well known and obvious historical summary yet removed because there were no external citation "with this exact statement".
• I currently would like to add "While most Muslims are well integrated to French society", an obvious fact of French society, to neutralize the dramatic-pessimistic and muslim-agressive tone of the background which is quite stigmatising muslim and accordingly, shocking. I will not improve the section, add this obvious common sense, but de facto leave the section tone anti-muslims, because I haven't under hand an article with this EXACT statement. This statement is so obvious to French journalists that they will not even write it, or it will insult the intelligence of French readers who see it daily.
• On the other hand you will protect "An August 2014 ICM survey found that one in six French citizens (16%) sympathises with the Islamist group ISIS - also known as Islamic state." because there is a source while the "sympathises" is so blur that it can mean anything such "do you sympathise with their fight against Assad".

Sources are needed, but when you remove every single non-controversial common sense summary on "it's not sourced directly in link with the shooting", you make our writing work impossible and you do encourage to keep the section in a poor autistic state. Yug (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC) See Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not.

Wiki writing is a work in progress, and positive stones should not be removed from the wall on the argument "stone is not perfect", as it makes the wall-article fragile. For non-controversial points, sources must be requested, but the content should not be removed. Yug (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@curlyturkey - I just have a preference for journalists and historians who are active now as observers and commentators on the contemporary French scene, or political scene in general, like Lyse Doucet say, over what amounts to a superannuated 'rentagob' like Black with a predetermined narrative to sell - would belong better in a 'reaction' section anyhow, - setting the background should be the result of collecting highly informed RS on French politics, culture and society - you seem to favour sensationalist op-ed type material for some reason. Sayerslle (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@yug - I agree with what you are saying here , but surely theer must be RS for the degree of integrated -ness etc - there isn't really a way to ignore RS if they are being asked for is there? Sayerslle (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Montreal Canadiens pay tribute to victims

Should this sentence, or a variation of this, be put in? "On 10 January, the Montreal Canadiens honoured the 12 victims who were killed in the attacks with the playing of La Marseillaise before their game against the Pittsburgh Penguins." J4lambert (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• No, that is not interesting. Abductive (reasoning) 17:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that is interesting.98.221.118.184 (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, its not. Abductive (reasoning) 20:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)`

Not useful in the article - a not notable reaction. Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

user:WWGB's deletions

This user seems to delete quite quickly on several sections by the thousands of characters including sources added by others. I did my share on chirurgically restoring some of this content, but there is more to do. Please help ! Yug (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC) (I have mid-year exam tomorrow morning O.o )

Thanks, I'm flattered by your stalking. As I am a very experienced editor with more than 86,000 edits, you will find that all my edits are permissible under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have never been blocked and never will be. WWGB (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Yug, don't be discouraged. I just want to say your contributions are helpful. Some of it was questionable and was edited by WWGB accordingly, but the majority of what you generally bring up is good stuff that merely needed better sourcing and better wording. Zup326 (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Zup326, I know it needed better sourcing, I disagree that the reaction to have is to remove it. + thanks Zup326, such encouragement is always welcome ! (to me or to this badass WWGB) Yug (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to get away without sourcing

So there's this dirty little comment snuck into the article:

< !-- See external sources in the cited wikipedia articles. Notice that this section summarizing other wikipedia articles, external sources **while helpful are not compulsory**. -- >

No, no, no—a thousand times no—we do not include material without citations, especially material that is obviously politically heated. You don't get out of including references just because you've linked to another Wikipedia article. This is not negotiable. The balls of whoever it is trying to convince people citations are "helpful" but "not compulsory"—they are compulsory! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait... this is a reponse to people removing :

On the other hand, some Muslims claim that the satire of religion, of religious representatives and - above all - of the Muslim prophet is forbidden blasphemy in Islam and can be punished by death.

There is a whole wikipedia article about that: blasphemy in Islam. Are you really asking that we copy-paste external reference from the original article we already link to ?Ok, so you are deleting the section on the basic argument "this is not EXTERNALY sourced enough", right ? Yug (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is the minimum requirement, yes. It would also require demonstrating relation to this incident. Do sources commenting on the shooting also comment on their relation to this information you've added? Remember, no WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It needs to be cited in every article that makes the claim. Popcornduff (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Funny how you 2 are supporting the deletion of meaningful, verifiable contents (after 3 clicks rather than 2) based on the light "there is no external source right under hand". The WP:SYNTHESIS was also commented by Jimbo Wales by "don't be stupid either", stating that obviously true contents should not be deleted based on "there is no external reference". It was before 2010 and before that new users come along and look at wise best practices such WP:SYNTHESIS as "hard stone-writen laws". Concluding from 2 facts is acceptable when the final statement is obviously logical and true. Yug (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Example: saying that part of the issue is socio-economical, that part of the poorer areas are radicalized after individuals from poor areas lead to such even is valid. When source is always welcome, no source is not a argument for keeping stupid. Yug (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You're going to make the claim that anything in a politically-charged article is "obviously true"? Get yourself a reliable, in-context source and you're fine—what issue do you have with that? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You perfectly understood i'am talking about logical statements, not about hard to believe associations. What issue ? => 1. your removal is not helping, it is HIDING explicative elements and destroying the needed outline which is the 1st step to then receive the sources you are asking for, and that we all acknowledge are in the cited wikipedia articles and in current French debates. 2. My mid-term exams are today. Yug (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The "1st step to then receive the sources you are asking for" is to get the sources. Get them, then come back. The article's not going anywhere til you get back. Remember, the info must be in-context, and not just what you feel should be added. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Curly Turkey: Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_rigid_rule , Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH is not summary, Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH is not explanation. You are removing content which is the summary of cited wikipedia articles (point 2) and thus verifiable. Yug (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You're spending an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out just how close of to the SYNTH line you can go, aren't you? Not a good sign. And still no attempt at providing sources, eh? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, if you just want to win the argument against other people go ahead in long edit wars and WP:something naming with hard line reading. You will likely exhaust your opponents and win, good for yourself. In the current emergency of load of readers and few in depth sources, my question is "how do we take off from a superficial list of lowly connected sourced statements into a meaningful and honest encyclopedic article". Yug (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Sourcing is help, deleting summary of meaningful content doesn't.

Source for this statement very questionable

The following statement: "Elsa Cayat was the only female slain and was targeted because she was Jewish." merely repeats the theory a cousin of Ms. Cayat opined in an interview. It shouldn't be presented in this article as a flat statement of truth. The attackers obviously had very little background on the people they were killing, since they had to ask for "Charb" by name, unable to recognize him. So how can the notion that this woman was slain simply for being Jewish be substantiated? Everyone else was killed simply for being there, but she was killed for being Jewish? Come on. 104.184.5.46 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor has a point here. Unless the killers went around asking the ethnicity of everyone they killed in advance, which I haven't seen any real evidence of, we would have to assume this statement is a piece of opinion from one individual who may not be particularly well informed about the events as they happened and putting some personal spin on it. John Carter (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawing own question above. However, considering Ms. Cayat had, we are told, been receiving death threats, and was the Jewish columnist, I think it makes sense to include that information. Also, the fact that she was the Jewish columnist, under the circumstances, probably is relevant, probably even more relevant than her own Jewish identity. Her status as the columnist may well have drawn much more attention to her Jewish identity than it would otherwise have received, and made it much easier for the killers to identify her directly. I think the relevance tag can reasonably be removed from that material, although I would appreciate more input before doing so myself. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@ John Carter, we already had this discussion before but it's been archived now. It's clear that the killers spared the lives of two non-Jewish women and killed the only Jewish one. It's not yet possible to write about that much detail because we don't yet have a better source explaining it, although common sense can allow one to agree with everything you said. It's getting quite tiresome to have debates over and over when this type of information is removed. Do people even read the sources anymore? She had received death threats and was called a "dirty Jew," and two other non-Jew women were spared. The killers didn't want to kill women. If she wasn't killed because she was Jewish, they why didn't they spare her life as well? Zup326 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That being the case, I think it would be reasonable to remove the "relevance" tag currently in place regarding that text. Does someone else want to do that, or should I? John Carter (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Go ahead and remove it. The source for the writing was (irritatingly) removed which I'm in the process of adding back. I reworded it and rearranged as well so as to be less confusing for readers. Zup326 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter not only is this the opinion of one individual (her cousin), but the most important part of it has been omitted for god knows what reason. She clearly stated "I can't be sure, I can only guess". MoorNextDoor (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You are presuming cause and effect ... she was the only female killed, and she was the only Jewish female ... ergo she must have been killed because she was Jewish. Let me propose another scenario. She was perhaps somewhat androgynous-looking and was facing halfway away from the killers as they came in the door. So they shot her without realizing she was a female. And given the facts we DO know, that is a much more logical theory than that she was killed because she was Jewish. NO ONE has thus far reported that anyone was questioned as to background, other than the calling out of "Charb", who was clearly targeted. The killers didn't even know where they were going, for pete's sake, so assuming that they had advance knowledge of who was Jewish, or cared, is too much. If you continue to make this argument, I am going to recommend a course in logic. Amity150 (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

p.s. I also want to point out that if I start publishing similar material about Jesus Christ, I will no doubt receive death threats. If I am killed it doesn't necessarily follow that my murderers were the same people who leveled the death threats. It could have been my cuckolded husband... just saying'. So let's please maintain some standards here and not reported inflammatory hate-mongering unsubstantiated stuff.Amity150 (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's some direct testimony of the death threats: "You dirty Jew. Stop working for Charlie Hebdo. If you don't, we will kill you." Safe to say it wasn't her husband and it's pretty clear that whoever said it had major beef with Charlie Hebdo. These threats occurred in December and less than a month later she is six feet under. Zup326 (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless the sources link this directly to the shooting, this is speculation and must be kept out. Who is "we"? Couldn't be neo-Nazis or anything, could it? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point but does it matter that much who made the threats though? I'm just wondering if it's notable simply for the fact that death threats were made, regardless of who said them. Maybe we can write something in some place like, "She had received anonymous death threats a month prior to the attack." Would this be feasible to include while leaving out the Jewish speculation? Zup326 (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course it matters. The way it's presented it leads the reader to assume she was targeted for being Jewish. That has not been established. The death threats would, of course, be appropriate in her own aritcle, but until sources show that there was a connection between the death threats and the shootings, then this text has to go. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia has no place for speculation. Unless we have a better source than the specualtion of a distraught cousin, the statement must be removed. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• The article currently reads "Elsa Cayat was the only female slain." Now, I acknowledge that there is speculation, attributed to her relative, in the more detailed section regarding her individually, from which I removed the relevance tag. The details there, however, are presented with the appropriate attribution to her relative. John Carter (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No, the quotation is out of context—what about here "I can't be sure, I can only guess"? No, the text as it is now put undue weight on the speculation that the two gunman targeted her for being Jewish. Until a better source shows up and is used in context, the text must be removed. I repeat: Wikipedia has no place for speculation. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • John Carter: this does not fix the problem. 63 words of speculation is WP:UNDUE. Also, take a look at the notice at the top of this talk page: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy". Specualtion doesn't belong in a BLP. Find a source that demonstrates the connection between the death threats and the shooting, or delete the speculation. This is something that's not up for "consensus". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough guys. My bad. I agree we don't have enough RS. Here's another source on Elsa Cayat though with testimony of the death threats. That is not speculation and is direct testimony of an event that occurred. A girl receives clear death threats, is called a dirty Jew, and then ends up being the only woman killed in a massacre less than a month later where other women were deliberately left alive? It's completely unbelievable to say that her death was a mere coincidence of the act, but alas there is no RS that proves it as fact. Zup326 (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there any evidence in the sources that those death threats were related to the shooters? Or that they even came from Islamists, or even Muslims? No? Speculation—toss it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation Overkill

I believe some sentences have too many citation footnotes. For example:

• On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 CET (10:30 UTC), two masked gunmen armed with AK-47 assault rifles, a shotgun, and a RPG launcher stormed Charlie Hebdo's Paris headquarters.[4][5][6][7][19][54]

• There were also large marches in many other French towns and cities — perhaps three million people throughout France — along with marches and vigils in many other cities worldwide.[28][215][216][217][218]

• Some English-language media outlets republished the controversial cartoons on their websites in the hours following the shootings. Prominent examples included Bloomberg News,[224] The Huffington Post,[225] The Daily Beast,[226] Gawker,[227] Vox[228] and The Washington Free Beacon.[229]

• Former Union Minister and Indian National Congress senior leader Mani Shankar Aiyar defended the attacks on Twitter and television[284] as a response to France banning the niqab, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.[285][286][287][288][289][290]

I believe some of the citations should be formatted in a single footnote, as the article is currently difficult to read. Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccination&oldid=511805976#cite_note-4

Gamebuster19901 (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Some of that was the result of editors deleting the material in question. For example, the first sentence and series of refs. You can see some of the history of that on the talk page (editors seemed happy deleting the sentence if there were only two or three RS refs). But yes, formatting any of those into a single fn would be fine. Also, except for possibly contentious matters, the lede does not needs refs ... to the extent that the refs appear in the body, supporting the same proposition. Epeefleche (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 January 2015 continued

This is a continuation of the original discussion regarding the moving of the page Charlie Hebdo shooting. Please post any new comments in this section. The archived discussion can be found here: Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting/Archive 4 Undescribed (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator, I'd quick-fail close this immediately. I'm unwilling, as I'm sure other busy admins are, to evaluate a RM discussion that's split between multiple pages, particularly since so many arguments are likely to be rehashed by the same people, making it difficult to determine consensus.

I suggest moving the discussion out of the archive and into its own sub-page where everyone can participate, or move it back to this talk page and set the auto-archiving to a longer expiration. And when you move it, be sure that the list at WP:RM is properly updated. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Done Undescribed (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Move?

Charlie Hebdo shooting → ? – I think that 2015 Paris attacks or something should be the name of the Article. Yogurto (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree Agreed. And since all four incidents took place within Île-de-France; the sect encompassing Paris, I think that 2015 Paris attacks is most appropriate; rather than 2015 France attacks. Undescribed (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Kinda Disagree. This was the most prominent of the attacks internationally. I feel that there should be an article on the attacks as a whole, but this was a complex situation. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Split and/or rename. If these are unrelated or are materially different in scope, separate articles may be warranted. In any event, the article has ballooned well beyond the shooting at the weekly. In addition, the international reaction to the rest of the events may be different or less. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That is kind of what I was going for. The attacks do need an article, but I believe that this needs one as well. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree Strongly support renaming it 2015 Paris attacks. There has now been a police officer and four hostages killed in separate incidents to the office shootings. Tomh903 (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree *I agree fully. That would be most consistent with other multi-scene attacks, e.g., 2008 Mumbai attacks. Neutrality^talk 19:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree Guys, the attack on Charlie Hebdo is very particular because it is about terrorists exercising preemptive censure power on freedom of speech through selective intimidation of the media. This has proven to work: already yesterday Jyllands Posten was the only medium in Denmark to not publish any Charlie Hebdo cartoons, as a result of the numerous attacks they have received prior for merely publishing cartoons. The regrettable terrorism against the kosher grocery, yesterday's policewoman, and the printer are, sad to say, routine terrorism. The Charlie Hebdo attack is a special attack on the West's freedom of expression, and deserves its own article. XavierItzm (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree on renaming - Support unique article for Charlie Hebdo : All the incidents may be related. But the Charlie Hebdo attack is related to a long history of events, plus that the attack on a newspaper is completely another level. I suggest two articles, a general article on all attacks called 2015 Paris attacks with a brief section in that all inclusive article that leads to a separate and extensive article on Charlie Hebdo shooting. Plus that the Charlie Hebdo story will, because of its nature, continue for a long time in the future as well and will need constant updating whereas sadly the other stories will die down rather quickly. werldwayd (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree While I think there's certainly room for a general article covering all of the attacks, as related, I think this one specifically needs to stay its own separate article. As pointed out, it involves morew backstory and has had (and is likely to have) a great deal more coverage. Everything else in ancillary. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree with a rename. "Charlie Hebdo" is already the well-established and publicly known term regarding the attack. The sieges today were carried out by the same individuals and thus do no warrant a new article either. Today's sieges are related and will also be remembered as part of the "Charlie Hebdo saga" so to speak. Having another article called "2015 Paris Attacks" or some such is divisive and confusing for essentially a continuation and conclusion of the same issue. It would be best to simply expand this article to include the January 9th sieges and their aftermaths here. Zup326 (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree The article is about more than just the Charlie shooting. 67.86.15.242 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree Yes, the Charlie Hebdo incident is the incident getting the most attention, but that doesn't mean that the other three incidents shouldn't have their place in the title. I could understand if it was just the incidents involving the Montrouge shooting and Dammartin-en-Goële hostage crisis where there was only one hostage and the perpetrators were killed. However,the Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis was much more significant. At least sixteen hostages, four hostage deaths and a massive police raid, killing the suspect. The five deaths in that incident should definitely be enough to have it's respectable place in the article title. We don't see these types of incidents in first world countries very often. Also, the combined deaths of the three other incidents account for nearly half of the total fatalities in the incidents. All of these reasons should warrant a title change on the basis of rarity and significance. 72.87.108.194 (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree All of the events appear to be related. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose – Imprecise name, and WP:PRECISE is an article title criteria. The events were not all in Paris, firstly. Secondly, the other events were just continuations of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, which was the main event in a small series. The present title is the most concise and precise. It instantly tells the reader what is being referred to. What's more, the proposed title implies that the events took place throughout 2015, which is very misleading. Leave the title alone. The present title is the correct one. Note, for example, that the BBC uses "Charlie Hebdo" to reference the whole series of events, rather than "Paris". RGloucester — ☎ 22:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree per rgloucester. 89.242.84.73 (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Err...you mean disagree? Or you agree with the name change due to completely disagreeing with him? He is against the name change. Zup326 (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree with a rename the bbc article is an example of a RS designation for the events - this has been 'framed' pretty much already in RS and its too late to change it - if 'je suis 2015 paris attacks' badges appear then re-name - until then I don't think it should be changed. Sayerslle (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• On a side note, what the heck is this "agree/disagree" nonsense? I've never seen it used before on Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 22:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree "Paris" wasn't the target—Charlie Hebdo was. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hold off. The move may indeed be justified, but it's the same day and the press needs to figure out its terminology. No sense moving it today and moving to something else tomorrow. If I don't strike it sooner this "!vote" expires a week from today. Wnt (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree All of the events are clearly related. Redirect the current title to the new one (we could add "terrorist" to the title, and could add the month ... if we are feeling hopeful). Similar to our articles 2008 Mumbai attacks, 2005 Sharm el-Sheikh attacks, 2014 Yobe State attacks, 2011 Norway attacks, 2014 Kashmir Valley attacks, January 2011 Iraq suicide attacks, Sadr City terrorist attacks, April 2005 Cairo terrorist attacks, and February 2009 Cairo terrorist attacks. If this article becomes too long (it is not there yet), at that point in time a spit can be considered. Epeefleche (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: I'd comment that most if not all of those attacks you've listed were on or in the city/location or against its people with no intended target. There really wasn't much else you could name them. In this case, Charlie Hebdo was the clear target without question and was more than an attack on just Paris or its people. It just so happens that Charlie Hebdo was located in Paris. It likely would have happened no matter the city or country they were in. All of the subsequent incidents as well are a continuation of the Charlie Hebdo attack and are not isolated incidents. The term "Charlie Hebdo" is pretty entrenched into the media currently as well and is the term that most people currently use to identify all of these attacks. Zup326 (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

After seeing that list though my name suggestion would probably be Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks which includes all 4 incidents. Zup326 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree Charlie Hebdo shooting is part of those three (connected) terrorist attacks, however it doesn't represent the whole. Gugganij (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree per RGloucester. If the article is to be renamed, I would support Charlie Hebdo attacks but, per Zup326, all the attacks are related to the initial massacre that was specifically targetted at Charlie Hebdo. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Chalie Hebdo attacks could mean any of the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. See the history at Charlie Hebdo — Gamebuster19901 (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree and strongly oppose, however... This article is about the Charlie Hebdo attacks. I do not think that this should be renamed. If you want to make an article containing more in-depth information about all the other attacks, go ahead. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree, ″January 2015 Paris shootings″ is more appropriate IMO. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose – Again, "Paris" was not the target of these attacks (and some of the action took place outside Paris), and I'm sure there may be more run-of-the-mill shootings this month in Paris. The essential bit of this incident is that it was an attack on Charlie Hebdo, which is also how it is characterised in RS. The other incidents were directly connected, and merely aftermath. They were not independent shootings. RGloucester — ☎ 02:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the shootings were connected, not independent, shows that Charlie Hebdo wasn't the only target. If "2015 Paris shootings" is too generic, the title could be "2015 Paris attacks". Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo was the only target, and the media's coverage of events frames it that way. The other shootings would not've happened if not for the events at Charlie Hebdo. They were merely fallout in the wake of a premeditated attack. The proposed title implies a year of "attacks" or "shootings" in Paris. This article is not about all the attacks and shootings in Paris in 2015. RGloucester — ☎ 05:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The gunman at the supermarket said that the shooting that killed the policewoman was part of the plan. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

How about January 2015 Paris and suburbs attacks? Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a bit wordy. If any of the attacks took place outside of Paris proper, (January) 2015 Île-de-France attacks or (January) 2015 Île-de-France shootings would be better. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment: I think we should wait for now. The fact that one more suspect is still out there, plus the fact that this could be the work of a new terrorist cell in France, leaves open the possibility of more attacks, possibly ones even more devastating than the Charlie Hebdo shooting. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree There's nothing wrong with titling this article after the first and most notable of the attacks. For instance, we do the same thing with the Boston Marathon bombing article, which discusses the subsequent Cambridge shooting and Watertown firefight and manhunt. If in a few weeks or months it turns out that people really do remember this as "the January 2015 Paris attacks," and not "the Charlie Hebdo shooting and subsequent attacks," we can rename this... But my strong suspicion is that won't be the case, just as the Boston Marathon bombing isn't remembered as "the April 2013 Greater Boston attacks." — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Well said. People are always going to remember this incident for Charlie Hebdo. Zup326 (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment: just an suggestion, can it be 2015_Paris_Terrorist_Attack_(Chalie_Hebdo), my arguments is based on how search engine works. 183.178.222.138 (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree Move to 2015 Île-de-France shootings - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: I never thought of that one. That would make more sense than the original two I mentioned. Undescribed (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree Move and create an article only about the Charlie Hebdo shooting, see proposal below. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 12:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree, the article is now (with an Charlie Hebdo shooting infobox and an related events infobox) only about the Charlie Hebdo shooting, with naming the other events. No need for changing the name. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 16:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree The attacks go beyond Charlie Hebdo. Xharm (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree for reasons already explained, kudos to editors for taking the time in opposing this nonsense. Such a waste of time. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Please, no rude comments about it being nonsense, waste of time, etc. We all have our own viewpoints and everyone's views should be respected in accordance with Wikipedia's code of conduct on civility Thank you. 72.87.108.194 (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

- Let me posit an alternative: Charlie Hebdo shooting and manhunt. My reasoning is that we could congeal the disparate infoboxes so that a reader could get the entirety of the story from a cursory glance of the lede. (cf. Christopher Dorner shootings and manhunt) The shooting of the police officer and the siege of the kosher market are all encapsulated and derivative of the initial Charlie Hebdo shooting. -- Veggies (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree - Move and create a parent article for the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks and two sub-articles: Charlie Hebdo massacre and Hyper Cacher massacre. The other events would remain exclusively under the parent article. Reason for the necessary change is that this is a series of attacks and events. I strongly object to adding January to the name as we do not know that there will be more terrorist attacks in Paris this year! gidonb (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Perpetrators and Article name.

So far there are two groups designated as perpetrators in the info-box. How can AQAP and ISIL both be responsible for the same massacre? As far as I know, the massacre committed by Saïd Kouachi and Chérif Kouachi concerning Charlie Hebdo had ties to AQAP whilst the Porte de Vincennes siege carried out by Amedy Coulibaly had ties with ISIL. I wish to ask if it would be more prudent to rename the article from the Charlie Hebdo shooting to something more general (such as January 2015 Paris shootings) concerning both shootings, as it may confuse readers. At the moment, the article name is focused on one particular event, whilst focusing on other similar but different ones. StanMan87 (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: the infobox, I removed that. It wasn't established by the cited sources, which were just reporting a single eye-witness report, "links" between the perpetrators and IS, and a video were AQ does not actually claim responsibility for the attacks. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

split

If there are two groups designated, and because there are several events, we can create the article such as January 2015 Paris attacks or January 2015 Paris shootings with a link to Charlie Hebdo shooting. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 11:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: They started doing this on the French Wikipedia, see: fr:Attaques terroristes de janvier 2015 en France with separate articles including fr:Attentat contre Charlie Hebdo, fr:Assaut de Dammartin-en-Goële and fr:Prise d'otages de la porte de Vincennes. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 12:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Support to move to 2015 Île-de-France shootings - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: The genesis event for all of this was the Charlie Hebdo shooting. That the violence or the perpetrators ensnared other areas does not change the fact that the subsequent events stem from the CH shooting. The Boston Marathon bombings article is an example of an article with the title of the initiating event but encompassing the eventual multiple shootings and firefights, a city on lockdown, and a manhunt. I can't understand the reasoning behind "splitting" an article to such a broad title, since this title can already fully cover the entirety of the events thus far. -- Veggies (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank for your reply User:Veggies, but that is exactly what I mean, to have an article that fully cover the entirety of the events and besides of that a separate article about the Charlie Hebdo shooting/manhunt. The Montrouge shooting and Porte de Vincennes siege are said to be linked, but are not about the Charlie Hebdo shooting. As this article will be moved to January 2015 Paris shootings or so with Porte de Vincennes siege has a separate page, the Charlie Hebdo shooting should also have a separate page. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 14:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree and strongly oppose There is no need to split the article. You can create the other articles, but removing the information about the other attacks in this article (which is what a split does) seems like it would harm it rather than help it. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree and strongly oppose as per above. I'm not really sure it's necessary to make 4 or 5 different articles for what is all related to essentially the same main issue. I oppose these splits but that being said, these splits and side articles are likely going to happen anyway though so I won't bother contesting them at all. We've already got a Porte de Vincennes siege article which is probably not even necessary on its own given the yet relatively moderate size of the main article. As far as name change issue, we've already got three discussions about the issue. I'd just like to mention again that using "Paris" in the name for any of these attacks implies that they were merely random attacks on or in "Paris" or against its citizens which the attacks certainly were not. The attackers never planted random bombs to indiscriminately target Paris civilians as seen in other terrorist attacks. It was a clear and deliberate terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo. I oppose all of these name changes for this reasoning, unless the name retains "Charlie Hebdo" in it. Zup326 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

But the events were not just a deliberate attack on Charlie Hebdo but also a deliberate attack on a Jewish supermarket because of it's Jewishness. Gugganij (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose with all my being – We don't need any more articles. We've got too many as it is. The "Charlie Hebdo shooting" was the genesis, as Veggies says above. RGloucester — ☎ 17:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Agree and strong support: 1. Right now, the infobox at the beginning just mentions the victims of the Charlie Hebdo shooting and waaaaaay down there are separate infoboxes of the police officer and the victims of the Jewish supermarket. Since the infobox is intended to give a quick overview of events it's totally inacceptable to relegate the other victims. 2. The attack on the Jewish supermarket was not a consequence of the Charlie Hebdo shooting but planned in advance. Thus, both the Charlie Hebdo shooting and the Porte de Vincennes siege are part of a coordinated terrorist attack in Paris. The current imbalance can be addressed in two ways: Either renaming the current article (with ONE infobox) and with different sections dealing with the three different attacks of this terror operation or creating a new article (January 2015 Paris attacks) with ONE infobox and, if necessary, links to articles of the Charlie Hebdo shooting and the Porte de Vincennes siege like the French wikipedia did (fr:Attentats de janvier 2015 en France) Gugganij (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - 2015 Île-de-France shootings or January 2015 Paris shootings - While I think this split discussion is not being done correct, I will support a split as above. This was a complex situation with multiple attacks. At the same time, one of the attacks was the major focus. Thus, there should be an article for the major attack and an article for the attacks in general. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Agree (January) 2015 Paris shootings or (January) 2015 Île-de-France shootings should be an overview of all of the attacks. Charlie Hebdo shooting should cover the Charlie Hebdo shooting. Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis should cover the supermarket shooting. If necessary, create an article about the killing of the policewoman. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree - Move and create a parent article for the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks and two sub-articles: Charlie Hebdo massacre and Hyper Cacher massacre. The other events would remain exclusively under the parent article. Reason for the necessary change is that this is a series of attacks and events. I strongly object to adding January to the name as we do not know that there will be more terrorist attacks in Paris this year! gidonb (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with calling either of these articles "massacres". They are terrorist attack, or shooting, or hostage crisis. I have no objection to splitting. Abductive (reasoning) 21:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Massacre is more precise than the other definitions. gidonb (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Shootings would be more precise. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

How exactly would that be more precise? Shootings "can take place in a shooting range or in the field in hunting, in shooting sports, or in combat." Not to mention shootings at weddings or other expression of joy that are quite common in some locations. How would "shooting" even start to describe what happened at these events? gidonb (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between "shooting" & "shootings". What you're describing (except for possibly combat) would usually be called shooting. Shootings usually only refers to people being shot (unless 1 person is shot, which isn't the case here). Then again, since what happened at Charlie Hebdo was 1 event, the title of this page is shooting. If this article ultimately only covers what happened at Charlie Hebdo, then I could see massacre being more precise (though massacre might receive some POV objections). If this article covers all of the events, shootings is more precise IMO & might be better for POV reasons. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: This is primarily based upon the shootings. Even the 3 attacks afterwards were based on this. As of now I have no opinion, but I am leaning toward agreeing. Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Numerals vs spelt-out numbers

The second sentence goes as follows (minus the links).

"They killed 12 people, including the editor Stéphane "Charb" Charbonnier, 7 other Charlie Hebdo employees, and 2 National Police officers, and wounded 11 others."

The use of numerals is justified by a hidden comment which reads "per [[WP:NUMNOTE]], numerals are fine here, as the series includes both small and larger numbers".

Actually, per WP:NUMNOTES, spelt-out numbers (as follows) would also be fine for the same reason.

"They killed twelve people, including the editor Stéphane "Charb" Charbonnier, seven other Charlie Hebdo employees, and two National Police officers, and wounded eleven others."

WP:NUMNOTES is a double-edged sword here as it allows either. It's actual purpose is to discourage a mixture like the following.

"They killed 12 people, including the editor Stéphane "Charb" Charbonnier, seven other Charlie Hebdo employees, and two National Police officers, and wounded 11 others."

So, it's a question as to which is better the style (all words or all numerals). I'd say "They killed twelve people ..." is the better style and I believe MOSNUM agrees.

Immediately above WP:NUMNOTES we have the following.

Generally, in article text:

• Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words
• Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words ...

This would seem to imply that if you have a set of comparable quantities including at least one integer from zero to nine all of which can be spelt out in fewer than three words, they should all be spelt out.

The following examples from WP:NUMNOTES appear to conform to this interpretation.

  •  five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.

  •  86 men and 103 women, not eighty-six men and 103 women

So, let's spell them all out. Jimp 05:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The existing format is perfectly fine. This is clear from the link to the MOS that you supply, but the language of which you failed to quote. Which states the exception to the general rule. Namely that: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures". The current format is "all in figures", and therefore perfectly in compliance with our MOS. No reason to change it. We are applying the exception here, not the general rule, so your back-tracking to the general rule, and importing it into the exception (which the exception does not do ... it says nothing about "well, if the number is x use this format, and if y use that format") ... is to mis-read the MOS.

At the Project, we do at times have formats in place that are fine to use, and someone comes along and says "here is another one that I personally like better that is also fine to use." We don't, in those circumstances, edit war back in forth - we stick with the one in place. An example is dates ... when we have 7 July 2010 in place, and someone wants to change it to 7-7-10. Or vice versa. We stick with the existing format. And we certainly don't edit war back and forth to try to impose a second format that is no more approved than the first format. Gives editors time to attend to other matters. Epeefleche (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• This is a level of hairsplitting that should be left until the flurry of edits has died down. There are enough edit conflicts as it is, and this issue is purely cosmetic. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no, I agree that it is cosmetic and I agree that MOSNUM allows either (I believe I acknowledged this). I'm not interested is starting an edit war (especially over such a small thing), that's why I brought it here for further consideration. I will admit that NUMNOTES does overrule the advice in WP:NUMERAL (to an extent at least). However, I don't agree that there is no reason to change it ... well, maybe not at present. Stylistically the spelt-out version seems better to me, sure, that's an appeal to I LIKE IT, but if consensus is to agree, so be it. No, I didn't quote (be it a kind of failure or not) the exception but I think I acknowledged it and did link to it. No, I also agree that it would be totally unproductive to be toing and froing over two equally acceptable styles. I only question whether these are really equally acceptable. Am I misreading MOSNUM or just interpreting it? Am I importing the general rule into the exception unjustly? Whatever. You know, though, if you follow the general rule (as specified by WP:NUMERAL), you don't need the exception (in this case), so, I might be forgiven for reading the MOSNUM the way I did. Anyhow, what I'm suggesting isn't what is said but I still reckon it's what is meant. Ultimately this could be a question to be dealt with at WT:MOSNUM so that we can have more definite rules (not too definite though). Jimp 13:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Next edition

The next edition of Charlie Hebdo will be full length (16 pages), and not 8 as previously planned. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.251.154.154 (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Muslim reactions

The section on Muslim reactions is divided into two, with some condemning and other supporting. The condemnations are coming from mainstream Muslims, where as the support are coming from lone individuals, often with no association to a major Muslim organization. Therefore, the section on support should not be given undue weight. Because it is certainly possibly to flood the article with Muslim condemnations of the attack, all sourced to reliable and notable sources.

Instead, I suggest we give broad summaries of the condemnations and support.VR _talk 06:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Where comments are made (on either side) by notable persons or organizations (e.g., those with wikipedia articles), I see no reason to hide the reactions from wikipedia's readers. Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying comments should be quoted in full? Wouldn't it suffice to say simply say "ISIS praised the attack", as opposed to quoting ISIS' exact words?

And if we started doing that, pretty soon we'd need to fork off an article like "Muslim reactions condemning Charlie Hebdo shooting", since there are literally, at least, 50 different notable Muslim individuals and organizations that have condemned the attack in lengthy statements.VR _talk 06:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Summarizing or shortening what they say, or lumping it together, would be fine with me -- editorial discretion (where the extra words add nothing, certainly it would be better). If it is Churchillian, then I would quote more. I'm focused on deleted that x took position y, if x has a wikipedia article, and RSs have reported it. I would be open to deleting views of people or organizations that don't have wp articles. Epeefleche (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Muslim official condemnations are many, almost unanimous. V has a good point, policy-wise. Some sense of proportionality per WP:Undue is needed. The article is already suffering from bloat, and one can barrel-scrap to get fringe support evidence, but is it important?.Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'm deleting this reaction: "Shots of joy in the Palestinian camp of Ain al-Hilweh, in southern Lebanon, were heard Wednesday..." This is a simply anonymous reaction from non-notable individuals. While the camp of Ain al-Hilweh itself is notable, its hard to believe that the "shots of joy" are representative of the camp. Let me know if anyone disagrees.VR _talk 02:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

wait, are you saying you are in a Better position to assess what the major Lebanse newspaper publishes (and cites a major TV Network as corroboration, to boot) than the local reporter who wrote the report? Are RS to be considered Less Reliable than Wikipedia editors from this point forward? Please advise, XavierItzm (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

ABC News reports that "Somayeh Nikooei", a random American Muslim, wants to express solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and the victims. Should we report that too? Per Epeefleche's comment, I think we should only report on reactions by notable individuals and organizations.VR _talk 14:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• isn't it ridiculous that the boring and repetitive condemnations of the terrorist attack by heads of state got spun aside into their own little article, and now we are looking at that list being repeated under this section, only for Islam countries only? XavierItzm (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting point. How do you propose this be handled? Please note that the majority of the world's Muslims live in Muslim-majority countries, so the official reaction of those countries is actually indicative of a lot of Muslims.VR _talk 02:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • since by far the majority of countries you allude to are not free and open democracies as we know it in the West, the assertion that anything those governments say is indicative of the population is open to challenge, don't you think? My humble suggestion is that government statements stay on the government subpage that has been created for that purpose and we keep this page clean of government tropes, propaganda, deflection, or positioning tactics. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• This was reverted. Why?VR _talk 03:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

because he did not condemn the attacks straightforwardly - he used sectarian language - takfiris etc - he is happy with shia terror - and assad regime terror , he is part of it - and he simultaneously continued to attack Charlie hebdo by saying the takfiris are worse than even the leftist cartoonists - so to just leave up 'he condemned the atatcks' - is too Hezbollah friendly imo and misrepresents the speech- which was sectarian and religious fascist imo - against sunnis and against the leftists of Charlie hebdo. - the extended quote, which is still not much, is necessary imo. Sayerslle (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

disagree. Who is Wikipedia to judge "the language" of Hezbollah and adjudicate the sectarian disputes of the followers of Allah? If the RS provides a quote from Hizbollah, then it should be included verbatim, and to do otherwise reflects bias (note Hizbollah is not a government so it is OK to include in this section). XavierItzm (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

i'm not arguing to judge the bloody language i'm saying report the choice of words used by this man in his condemnation of terror scrupulously. ffs. a few extra words to represent what was said accurately, the exact words, and i'm accused of seeking to adjudicate sectarian disputes. load of bloody rubbish. include verbatim - yes, that is what I want - what was wanted was obliteration of the exact words precisely with the effect of making it biased. 'Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said what he called "takfiri terrorist groups" had insulted Islam more than "even those who have attacked the messenger of God through books depicting the Prophet or making films depicting the Prophet or drawing cartoons of the Prophet." reuters - reuters highlights the language used - if you say 'oh its not for wp to reflect sectarian language, thats not our business' , i'd say - stick to RS - don't seek to erase exact language in RS for any 'PC' concerns - 'ooh its not for the likes of us to get involved ...' Sayerslle (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you.  ;-) XavierItzm (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability

• For fear that my point may get lost above, I want to start a new bullet. For reactions, I propose that we only include reactions of those people or organizations that are notable (which would probably mean that they have a wikipedia article). We should not include the reactions of non-notable individuals, even if they are reported in reliable sources, because that will really bloat the article and violate WP:UNDUE. There are likely hundreds, if not thousands of articles, where the journalist interviews John Smith on the street and asks him his opinion on the matter. We can't simply include all of those reactions.VR _talk 15:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Condemnation higher than support

The vast majority of Muslims, both in France and worldwide, have condemned the Charlie Hebdo attacks. But, Andiar.rohnds insists on putting the reactions supporting the attacks before those condemning them. Why?VR _talk 15:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)